Homily for the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Isaiah 55:10-11: Psalm 65; Romans 8:18-23; Matthew 13:1-9
16 July 2023
Today’s readings are full of life and promise. In the first reading from Isaiah, the rain comes down ‘watering the earth, making it yield and giving growth to provide seed for the sower’. In the gospel from Matthew, the sower throws seed everywhere. Some of it does not bear fruit, having landed on the path, or on rocky soil, or amongst the thorns. But some of it lands on good soil producing ‘a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty’. In the second reading, Paul tells the Romans that the entire creation ‘has been groaning in one great act of giving birth’.
Having described the simple story of the sower, Jesus is asked, ‘Why do you talk in parables?’ He says that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are not revealed to everyone but only a select few. Scripture scholar Daniel Harrington says: ‘[T]he problem facing Matthew was an inner-Jewish situation, not unlike the problem that Jesus himself encountered in his preaching. The difference…arises from the cross and resurrection, from the exalted claims made by Christians about them and the scandal that they constituted for other Jews. The primary literary form in which this problem is handled is the parable.’ [1]
Scripture scholar C. H. Dodd describes a parable as ‘a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt of its precise application to tease it into active thought.’
Listen at https://soundcloud.com/frank-brennan-6/homily-16723
Even those of us who are not from a farming background understand very readily that seed falling on a path or amongst thorns or on rocky ground would not bear fruit. We also understand that seed falling on good soil would bear fruit. What arrests us is the claim that some seed will bear fruit a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. Harrington says, ‘The sower’s prodigality is best interpreted as part of the “unusual” character of the story that helps to catch the hearer’s attention and to build up tension and suspense.’[2]
Some things we do in life achieve nothing, and perhaps all too often for our liking; others achieve a hundredfold, but perhaps not all that often, and definitely not as often as we would wish. Ultimately, it’s all in God’s hands. We never quite know when any of our labours will bear fruit, or whether they will backfire.
During the week, I pondered a very worldly example of this. We have all been shocked by the findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission. The lawyer in me had long wondered how the government had got away with implementing such a scheme when it was illegal.
The Royal Commission reported:
‘On 8 March 2017, Professor Terry Carney handed down the first decision giving reasons for concluding that income averaging was unlawful. The Department of Human Services (DHS) did not appeal the 8 March 2017 decision, or other similar decisions that followed it. Nor did it provide Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) members with those decisions, in breach of its duty as a model litigant to assist the AAT. It also did not report those decisions as a significant issue to the Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC). Instead, DHS felt free to reject the reasoning in those decisions, and continued its use of income averaging under the Scheme.’[3]
When his term had expired, Professor Carney was not re-appointed to the AAT. So he was free to write articles about the illegal activities which were continuing. His writings blew the lid on the cesspit of illegal activity by public servants and politicians adversely impacting the lives of thousands of decent welfare recipients.
During the week, Carney told a journalist: ‘For whatever reason, I was not reappointed. But it did the public a favour because it meant I was able to publish. By March of the following year I would have had to resign anyway. I could not have just sat there giving decisions that had no impact. Public servants were not appealing against the decisions. And the reason? Well they were not saying decisions by Carney and other members were wrong. They were just not appealing it to the next level. Why would that be? Well if they did, it would become public and the reasons would become public that would be prejudicial to the scheme. The obligation on lawyers is to check whether things are illegal or not.’[4]
All it took was for one seed to fall on good ground and yield a hundredfold. But meanwhile there had been a lot of suffering and an inordinate amount of cover-up. As Jesus tells the disciples: ‘The one who received the seed in rich soil is… the one who yields a harvest and produces now a hundredfold, now sixty, now thirty’.
Meanwhile later in the week, the image of seeds being sown was invoked by one of my critics on Facebook in relation to the Voice. This critic wrote: ‘Fr Brennan’s earlier stance on the referendum has contributed to the growth of doubt that, very sadly, may well lead to the defeat of the referendum. Sadly the damage has been done. The seeds of doubt were sowed and we are going to reap the harvest.’
My ‘earlier stance’ was a contribution to the limited parliamentary process to review the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution. Like a number of other lawyers, I thought the wording could be improved to enhance the prospects of a YES vote. Once parliament declined to change the wording, I unequivocally committed myself to YES, and did so within hours.[5] The government’s continued attempts to limit the practical scope of the wording demonstrate the problem I and other lawyers were addressing. The wording is not perfect. But we all now have a clear choice: YES or NO, and I’m for YES. I appreciate that some rusted on YES voters thought there should be no attempt to participate constructively in the parliamentary committee process even though there had been no previous constitutional convention or parliamentary process for public participation. When it comes to amending the Australian Constitution, I respectfully disagree. Let’s hope we can get the country to YES despite the failings of process.
Many voters who will vote YES will be convinced that the constitutional amendment is perfect, or they won’t much care. But for the referendum to succeed, there will need to be a whole other cohort of YES voters – those who are not convinced that the wording is perfect but who nonetheless think it better for the nation and better for First Nations peoples that the change be made. I am one of those voters, and I would be happy if my example were to assist other voters who might be undecided to take a similar course.
It might be a case of letting the wheat spring up with the darnel and then separating out the two on voting day when we are all confronted with a difficult choice: YES to an imperfect constitutional formula or NO, thereby placing on hold for another generation any form of constitutional recognition of First Australians.
Having been teased into active thought by today’s parable, let’s remain respectful of each other these next three months, whatever our views on constitutional recognition. Let’s give thanks for the occasional shining light like Professor Carney. And let’s pray for the coming of the Kingdom, taking heart from the words of Isaiah:
Thus says the LORD:
Just as from the heavens
the rain and snow come down
and do not return there
till they have watered the earth,
making it fertile and fruitful,
giving seed to the one who sows
and bread to the one who eats,
so shall my word be
that goes forth from my mouth;
my word shall not return to me void,
but shall do my will,
achieving the end for which I sent it.
Fr Frank Brennan SJ is the Rector of Newman College, Melbourne, and the former CEO of Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA).
[1] Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), p. 198.
[2] Ibid, p. 199.
[3] Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, Report, 2023, p. 553, available at https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/report.
[4] Chris Merritt, ‘Robodebt Casts Cloud Over Government Lawyers’, The Australian, 13 July 2023, available at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/robodebt-casts-cloud-over-government-lawyers/news-story/9594dfa93ae81b005b2865bae76fac12
[5]Frank Brennan, ‘Constitutional recognition will “enhance us as a nation”’, Skynews, 19 June 2023, available at https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/constitutional-recognition-will-enhance-us-as-a-nation-father-frank-brennan/video/b68f241488d7dd0bf42b629edbe8f16b
